Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 9, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Anderson v. Bonnema

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 771
• Docket Number: 25CA012203

• Judges: Carr

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

motion to dismiss, res judicata, party-presentation principle

Combined Opinion

                        by [Donna J. Carr](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8066/donna-j-carr/)

[Cite as Anderson v. Bonnema, 2026-Ohio-771.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF LORAIN )

DOUGLAS ANDERSON C.A. No. 25CA012203

Appellan

v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
KEVIN BONNEMA, et al. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO
Appellees CASE No. 23CV209327

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: March 9, 2026

CARR, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant Douglas Anderson appeals, pro se, the judgment of the Lorain

County Court of Common Pleas. This Court reverses and remands the matter for proceedings

consistent with this decision.

I.

{¶2} In May 2024, Mr. Anderson, appearing pro se, and Rock and Racing LLC filed a

complaint against Defendants-Appellees Kevin Bonnema, Lorain County Speedway, Lori

Bonnema Blume, Cara Bonnema, Randy Maggio, Denise Maggio, Raceway Concessions LLC,

and Randy Maggio, Jr. The complaint essentially alleged that the Defendants illegally obtained

the Lorain County Speedway and Rock and Racing LLC from Mr. Anderson.

{¶3} On May 21, 2024, several of the Defendants-Appellees filed a motion to dismiss or

for a more definite statement. On June 10, 2024, Mr. Anderson filed what he labeled a “Revised

Formal Complaint for a More Definite Statement[.]” That document listed only Mr. Anderson as
2

a Plaintiff. On June 20, 2024, the same group of Defendants-Appellees moved to renew their prior

motion to dismiss. Mr. Anderson opposed the motion with two separate filings.

{¶4} On December 30, 2024, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss concluding

that the matter was barred by res judicata. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Mr. Anderson has appealed, raising three assignments of error for our review. Some of his

arguments will be consolidated and addressed out of sequence to facilitate our analysis.

Defendants-Appellees have not filed a brief. See App.R. 18(C).

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE RULING IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT[S’] MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR RES JUDICATA WAS AGAINST [CIV.R. 19.]

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

BY GRANTING PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY.
(SIC)

{¶5} When taken together, Mr. Anderson essentially argues in his first and third

assignments of error that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice on the

basis of res judicata.

{¶6} The group of Defendants-Appellees that filed the motion to dismiss did so pursuant

to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). “A motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim is a

procedural motion that tests the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint.” (Internal quotations and

citations omitted.) Haven v. Lodi, 2022-Ohio-3957, ¶ 7 (9th Dist.). “A court’s consideration of a

Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss is limited to the complaint’s factual allegations and any

materials incorporated into the complaint. A court may not assume as true or even consider facts

alleged in a party’s brief or attachments thereto.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Id.
3

And “while trial courts may take judicial notice of proceedings in the immediate case, they cannot

take judicial notice of proceedings in other cases, even if the same judge presided or if the case

involves the same parties.” State v. Boychi, 2023-Ohio-3134, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.). Additionally, “it is

generally inappropriate to grant a motion to dismiss based on res judicata because it is an

affirmative defense.” State ex re. Gordon v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2024-Ohio-

3174, ¶ 5 (9th Dist.), quoting State ex rel. Peterson v. Miday, 2024-Ohio-2693, ¶ 13.

{¶7} Here, the motion to dismiss, which was later renewed by the group of Defendants-

Appellees, argued only the following grounds for dismissal: (1) that the complaint was not in the

proper form; (2) that the claim for fraud was impermissibly vague; and (3) that Mr. Anderson had

previously initiated an action in another case rendering the instant matter “repetitive and

frivolous[.]” Nowhere in the motion to dismiss or entry renewing the motion to dismiss did the

group of Defendants-Appellees mention res judicata.

{¶8} “[O]ur judicial system relies on the principle of party presentation, and courts

should ordinarily decide cases based on issues raised by the parties.” Epcon Communities

Franchising, L.L.C. v. Wilcox Dev. Group, L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-4989, ¶ 15, citing Greenlaw v.

United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243 (2008). The group of Defendants-Appellees that filed the motion

to dismiss and later renewed it did not ask the trial court to dismiss the case on the basis of res

judicata. Because the trial court nonetheless did so anyway, we conclude that the trial court erred.

See id. at ¶ 16.

{¶9} Mr. Anderson’s first and third assignments of error are sustained.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

SECTION 1925.05 SERVICE OF NOTICE FILING.
4

{¶10} Mr. Anderson appears to argue in his second assignment of error that the trial court

erred in failing to notify him that one of the Defendants-Appellees was no longer represented by a

particular attorney. In light of our ruling on Mr. Anderson’s other assignments of error, this

assignment of error has been rendered moot, and we decline to address it. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).

III.

{¶11} Mr. Anderson’s first and third assignments of error are sustained. His second

assignment of error is moot. The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is

reversed, and the matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this decision.

Judgment reversed,
and cause remanded.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of

this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

Costs taxed to Appellees.

DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
5

HENSAL, J.
CONCURS.

SUTTON, J.
DISSENTS.

APPEARANCES:

DOUGLAS ANDERSON, pro se, Appellant.

DAVID M. GAREAU, Attorney at Law, for Appellees.